Skip to main content

Shuttershock and Olympus 75-300

Since a couple of months I own the Olympus 75-300 III. And since day one, I wasn't happy with the results I got. 
All the pictures shot at +/- 300 mm where soft and looked like there was motion blur. How's that possible? I tried it at a 1/1000th of a second, but still the motion blur in my pictures. I regret that I ever sold my Pentax with the 55-300 for this awfull lens!
But... Most reviews of this lens are positive. Is my copy of this lens bad?
I then figured out by reading forums that it could be a phenomena called 'shuttershock'. It that case, the shock of the shutter causes enough movement so the image is blurred.
For example:

How to fix this?
My camera has several drive modes, including one called 'anti-shock'. And that does magic.
In that mode The pictures are sharp again. No motion blur is visible! 
The downside of this mode is that the fasted drivemode can't be used.

I left Pentax for Olympus

A couple of months ago I didn't feel happy with my camera gear. My DA 16-50 has never been okay and the AF of my Pentax also.

At the time I bought my first Pentax, I didn't wear glasses. Since a couple of years, I really need that kind of protheses ;). Looking through a viewfinder with glasses isn't always easy. Since I could use liveview, that seems to be much easier. Also shooting with my phone was done by "liveview".

Key decision points

I decided I wan't a new camera with the next options:
  • liveview AF as quick or quicker than my Pentax
  • small
  • budget friendly good lenses
  • better video quality and options
My wife owns an Olympus E-PL1 since 2010. That camera has an horrible screen and the autofocus isn't the quickest there is. But...

The size of the camera and also the ease of use is great. Also the 4:3 image ratio is great.

I decided to look for an M43 camera and looked for the Panasonic G80 (G85). I really liked the options and quality, but I didn't like the form factor. It's still to big.

Than I looked at the OM-D E-M5 MK II. That camera was a little bit older, but got great reviews. The image quality is great and all the options make it fun using it. Okay, the menu's are complicated, but that's not stopping me. I hate it when there are to few options instead of to many.

My new kit

I bought the camera with a couple of lenses:

  • 12-50
  • 17 f/1.8
  • 45 f/1.8
  • 75-300
  • 60 2.8 macro.
First impressions

Al these lenses are great substitutes for my old lenses, except the 75-300. The range is great, but the image quality is not as good als my 55-300 on my Pentax.

The 12-50 is a mediocre kitlens, but is a great substitute for my 16-50. Even with  the smaller aperture (f 3.5-6.3 instead of F2.8) I love using the lens. Also the closeup (macro) function is great for snapshots of insects etc. The extra range (25mm extra FF eq.) is great for a walkabout lens.
close-up sample
The camera is great to use. First I had to get used to the complicated menu system (as expected). There are a few thinks I noticed:

  • The image quality is a little bit les than my Pentax K-3 II.
  • The autofocus on the lenses <100mm is spot-on and very fast.
  • Continues autofocus is not great but the AF-S is that fast I can cope with that.
The use of the screen instead of a viewfinder is great for landscaping, candid shots of the kids, etc. I use the viewfinder only with the 75-300 for extra stability.

Popular posts from this blog

DXO Optics Pro vs. Corel Aftershot Pro

After using Aftershot Pro for a couple of days, I made this comparison to DXO Optics Pro 7. The difference is really clear. The colors in DXO (on the left) are much more realistic than the colors in Aftershot Pro (on the right).The settings where with the default settings with some tweaking for the contrast, exposure and noise reduction. (WB, saturation etc where left to default settings).
In the first picture, I could get the colors and contrast right with Aftershot Pro, with DXO I had to tweak the contrast, but after all, the picture is really nice and natural.

In this picture, at first view, I really like the version from Aftershot Pro. But this picture isn't real. The saturation of the picture is to much and the contrast unreal. The DXO version is a little bit foggy, but more like reality. With some tweaking of the curves, the DXO version will pop a little bit more.

This one shows the biggest difference. Removing chromatic aberrations. With DXO it was very simple, even if the…

Adobe Lightroom 4 vs. DXO Optics Pro 7

One day ago, Adobe released Lightroom 4.0. Two months ago, DXO released DXO Optics Pro 7. These two updates changed a lot in both software. How do they compare?
I'm using DXO Optics Pro for quite a while. I really like the simplicity and results. For landscape and nature photography the build in HDR tools are great. The possibilities to gain details from highlights is unsurpassed. The lack of speed of version 6 has been fixed in version 7. 
Is DXO still my favorite, or does Lightroom beat it? That question will I answer on the end. First of all I will compare them.
workflowLightroom is still the best workflow tool on the marketWorkflow is not the best in DXO. You need a tool like Picassa to do the file managementwinner: Lightroom, DXO doens't have real workflow toolsimage qualityLightroom gets very much detail from images, the lens correction is okay, but not very good,DXO get's a little less details from my images, but the lens correction tools are the best ever se…

Lightroom vs. DXO. vs. Photodirector

A little comparison of three RAW-converters. This comparison is not about how the program themselves works, but about the result of how one RAW-file is processed.

The version of the software I used:

DXO Optics Pro: 6.5
Adobe Lightroom: 3
Cyberlink Photodirector: 2011
For this test I used a photo of a little owl posted before on this weblog. The picture was a little underexposed and with a cheap lens (Tamron AF 70-300mm Di F/4.0-5.6 Macro 1:2). So there's work to do for the RAWconverter.